UPDATE: The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has just voted to adopt a controversial ethical investment policy, a decision that has sparked significant debate and a mixed response from local activists. The 4-1 vote occurred on October 3, 2023, following months of intense discussions about the implications of the county’s investment practices, particularly in relation to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
The debate began in December when Alameda County Treasurer Henry Levy sold the county’s holdings in Caterpillar Inc., which faced accusations of supporting illegal Israeli settlements. Following this, the Board directed Levy to develop a new ethical investment policy for the county’s $10 billion investment portfolio, revisiting a historical precedent set during the fight against apartheid in South Africa.
While supporters hailed the policy as a step toward ethical investing, opponents expressed concerns that it unfairly targets Israel amidst the escalating military conflict in Gaza. Activists from both sides packed the room during the vote, but silence fell over the pro-Palestinian supporters who had advocated for the policy, as the Board’s motion included a peer review that would delay implementation for several months.
Critics like Ofra Pleban from the Oakland Jewish Alliance argued the policy could foster antisemitism and harm the county’s financial returns. “It’s driven by anti-Israel activists and could lead to blacklisting companies simply for doing business with Israel,” Pleban stated. In contrast, supporters like Cynthia Papermaster, who lost family in the Holocaust, urged the supervisors to adopt the policy, asserting it was about ethical investing, not antisemitism.
Levy defended the need for the policy, emphasizing it reflects a broader commitment to ethical investment rather than a reaction to the current conflict. “People took what they wanted to mean from that,” Levy remarked, addressing the polarized interpretations of his actions. Supervisor David Haubert pushed back, questioning why human rights violations elsewhere, like those against Uyghurs in China, did not invoke similar investment scrutiny.
The supervisors’ approval of the policy, albeit conditional on a peer review, reflects ongoing tensions within the community regarding ethical standards in investment and the political implications of these decisions. Supervisor Nate Miley echoed concerns that the policy could jeopardize the county’s financial health, while Supervisor Nikki Fortunato Bas voted against the peer review, citing disappointment at the delay.
As the discussion continues, the Board’s decision marks a pivotal moment in Alameda County’s investment strategy, intertwining ethical considerations with financial responsibilities. The mixed reactions underscore the urgency and complexity of navigating such issues in a politically charged environment.
Moving forward, the Board will await the results of the peer review, which could shape the final implementation of the policy. Stakeholders will closely monitor how this policy evolves and its potential impact on the county’s financial future and community relations.
